|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Feb 25, 2010 10:12 am |
|
re: re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network |
John Stephen Veitch
| |
Thomas
When you engaged in an unprincipled attack on leftists and liberals. You accused them of being sophists, meaning that they used cunning and the devices of language to misrepresent the facts. A sophist would argue that black was white and make it sound absolutely logical.
You managed to prove that the only sophist in our ranks was yourself. I took you to task on that issue once before.
As Thorbjoern has already pointed out, in seeking to attack his examples, you countermanded all the principles you've tried to hold other people to over several months.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you choose to be abusive and unfairly critical towards other people, if you choose to misrepresent the facts, to call well founded opinion a lie, and to represent your own garbled version of reality as gospel, you shouldn't be too surprised that your status as an authority here is declining.
Taking your response to Thorbjoern as an example.
Item 1 ("Air is getting polluted")
"In California, air is getting CLEANER."
A key principle you've harped on about for months is that man is too puny to alter the environment in any significant way. Hence global warming must be a hoax.
Now you admit that cars have polluted the air.
And you admit that it's possible to make it cleaner.
I also note that you seem to think this is an unnecessary action. You don't seem to like bureacrats either. It's just as well we don't have spelling police or you and I would both be in trouble, Thomas. (bureaucrats)
Item 2 ("Water is getting polluted")
Calling people "STUPID, EVIL environmentalists" is inappropriate. Environmentalists might indeed be wrong, but it's my guess is that "wrongness" a common problem among people.
Once again, PEOPLE pollute the water and people if they choose are quite able to clean it up.
Sadly, in my neck of the woods, Canterbury, NZ, there is a demand from farmers for water rights, from rivers that are already "100% allocated". The body responsible for protecting the rivers opposed the applications. Now a new report commissioned by the government (The National Party was originally a rural party.) recommends the abolition of that authority for incompetence. Criminal acts against the environment continue, all dressed up as "legal process".
Item 5 ("Forests are disappearing".)
Certainly not true in New Zealand. The destruction of the forest by Maori was minimal. Europeans cut it down, to make pasture. They went far too far, and severe erosion of high country slopes occurred. NZ forest lands are about stable now. The expectation is that carbon pricing will encourage strong regeneration of NZ forests.
Item 7 ("Glaciers are melting")
"The UN IPCC just admitted that they were WRONG to project that the Himalayan ice caps were melting. They're not."
See the sophist at work again. Thomas, in an information age the truly stupid and evil people are the one's who deliberately spread misinformation. You, Thomas, are one of those people. I have no idea what you expect to achieve from it. From where I sit, it just leaves you looking incredibly foolish.
Take the small example above. Glaciers are melting almost everywhere. They have been in retreat in NZ for over 50 years. Glaciers are also in retreat in the Himalayas. That's of great concern on two fronts, excessive flooding, and lack of water supply in the dry season.
The Himalayan glaciers ARE melting, but the sophist, Thomas Holford, chooses to argue that black is white.
"The UN IPCC just admitted that they were WRONG to project that the Himalayan ice caps were melting."
You neglected to finish that statement Thomas. You know perfectly well that the IPCC didn't do what you've suggested. That, Thomas, when it's deliberate, and I'm sure it was, is evil, because you are seeking to mislead us, you are acting against us. You are betraying the other members of the network.
The IPCC said that an estimate in their peer reviewed report contains an error. Here is what the report actually said:
"The paragraph at issue reads: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."
The claim has been criticized by numerous glaciologists for being highly implausible
On 20th January, 2010.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged today that it had erred in projecting the rate and impacts of retreating Himalayan glaciers in a 2007 report. The faulty information appears in one paragraph of a 900-plus page Working Group II report. “In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the group explained in a prepared statement.
In fact, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University said this afternoon, Himalayan glaciers are thinning and retreating at a rapid pace, but not at a demonstrably faster rate than in many other parts of the world.
In fact, he said, it’s hard to fully understand how the Himalayas are responding to Earth’s warming because only about 600 of some 46,000 glaciers in that region are being monitored. Of those, 95 percent are in retreat. But it’s hard to understand how much mass the glaciers are losing, Thompson says, without first knowing the depth of affected glaciers — a measure of how much water they hold. And currently, such data are largely nonexistent.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55455/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__IPCC_admits_Himalayan_glacier_error
Your quote, Thomas: "The UN IPCC just admitted that they were WRONG to project that the Himalayan ice caps were melting." Is intended to be misleading. Why should we be the subject of your dishonest propaganda?
So Thomas as the moderator here, I think you should apologise and withdraw. I leave that to your decision. I consider your behaviour less than honourable.
In any case I ask you to cease trying to confuse and mislead people by making clearly erroneous statements. That's an abuse of all of us, and it's not acceptable.
John Stephen Veitch; The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - http://www.openfuture.co.nz/
Innovation Network - http://veech-network.ryze.com/
Building an Open Future - http://openfuture-network.ryze.com/Private Reply to John Stephen Veitch (new win) |
|
| |
|
